Which camera body next for sports and low light?

[Jaybird114]

All:

I have that bug to get another Canon body.  I have the opportunity to get a 7D for a little over $400, but is this the camera for me?

I have gone from the Canon XTI to the Canon 60D.  I love the 60D and thought of getting a 2nd body to keep the camera stuff (charger, batteries and SD cards) simpler and convenient.  But I have been thinking of upgrading, if I am going to look for a 2nd body. 

I shoot a lot of low light and sports (soccer, basket ball and baseball mostly).  To help with the low light, I upgraded my telophoto lens from a Tamron AF Aspherical XR DI LD(IF) 28-300 that is great for outdoors, but struggles a little inside.

To upgrade that, I bought the Canon Zoom Lens EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L. This lens took care of my low light indoor problem with school concerts.

In reading a little, they say the 7D is the way to go.   But it is the first series, not the 2nd.  Does that really matter?

Instead of reading for hours, days and weeks, can some of you shed some light on what you think?  I am also trying to stay in a reasonable budget of less than a $1000.  Don't tell the wife I have the bug.  That I will worry about after I decide what might be right.

I look forward in hearing from the forum and I thank you ahead of time for your feedback and suggestions.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Jaybird114 wrote:

All:

I have that bug to get another Canon body.  I have the opportunity to get a 7D for a little over $400, but is this the camera for me?

I have gone from the Canon XTI to the Canon 60D.  I love the 60D and thought of getting a 2nd body to keep the camera stuff (charger, batteries and SD cards) simpler and convenient.  But I have been thinking of upgrading, if I am going to look for a 2nd body. 

I shoot a lot of low light and sports (soccer, basket ball and baseball mostly).  To help with the low light, I upgraded my telophoto lens from a Tamron AF Aspherical XR DI LD(IF) 28-300 that is great for outdoors, but struggles a little inside.

To upgrade that, I bought the Canon Zoom Lens EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L. This lens took care of my low light indoor problem with school concerts.

In reading a little, they say the 7D is the way to go.   But it is the first series, not the 2nd.  Does that really matter?

Instead of reading for hours, days and weeks, can some of you shed some light on what you think?  I am also trying to stay in a reasonable budget of less than a $1000.  Don't tell the wife I have the bug.  That I will worry about after I decide what might be right.

I look forward in hearing from the forum and I thank you ahead of time for your feedback and suggestions.

---

1.  Since your telephoto lens is FF-compatible, you could consider a 6D, an excellent low-light camera. It costs more than $1000 though.

2.  The way to deal with your wife is to interest her in photography. Lend her your 60D and show her how to use it. When she catches the bug, get the 7D for her and a 6D for yourself.

[cicopo]

Not really the answer to your specific question but the 7D2 is a big improvement over the 7D and it's great at action & low light. It can AF in light my 1D4 can't, plus so far I haven't run up against a full buffer when shooting long bursts. 

[Jaybird114]

Bob:

Thanks for the information.   After I posted this, I did more research and also found a 7D locally for $449 used.

But reading more, they say to go with the 7D MarkII body for the improvements, etc.  I have read a few articles on the 6D and the reviews say to go with a 60D, than upgrade to a 6D.

My wife will of course ask why I need to upgrade and I really want to see the laces on the balls when the baseball pitcher throw the ball.  Sometimes I already do, but I want the faster processor.

Thanks for the info Bob.

Jay

[ebiggs1]

Jay,

As stated I am not a 6D fan but this statement is pure nonsense and bogus, "I have read a few articles on the 6D and the reviews say to go with a 60D, than upgrade to a 6D."

Given this choice, it is 6D all the way.  I will bet everyone of the knowledgable guys here will agree to that. It is hard to say which camera for another person to buy but given your budget requirement, the 7D is still the top of the list choice.  Keep in mind the 7D Mk II and the 5D Mk II are better at everything, they both have budget busting price tags, too.  You need to buy a camera you can use not one you wish you had.

Plus an over riding factor is still a better lens it better than a better camera.  You have a great lens.

Still my 2 cents and worth every penny.

[ebiggs1]

I made a living using two EOS 7D cameras.  It is a wonderful camera.  Restricted to your budget, I say it is a buy.  I used my EF 70-200mm on a 7D quite a bit.  I also shoot school activities and it worked well for that.

Personally, I am not a fan of either the 60D or the 6D.  I see them as place holders.  Canon saw the need to put something in between the very expensive 5D Mk III and nothing!  Hence, the 6D.  I don't know what the 60D was for?

Again most of the low light stuff about crop bodies is BS.  It mostly involves the highest ISOs and I admit it is better on a FF.  But is it that much better to blow your budget?  I can't answer that, you have to.  Cost vs benefit.  Your choice.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I made a living using two EOS 7D cameras.  It is a wonderful camera.  Restricted to your budget, I say it is a buy.  I used my EF 70-200mm on a 7D quite a bit.  I also shoot school activities and it worked well for that.

Personally, I am not a fan of either the 60D or the 6D.  I see them as place holders.  Canon saw the need to put something in between the very expensive 5D Mk III and nothing!  Hence, the 6D.  I don't know what the 60D was for?

Again most of the low light stuff about crop bodies is BS.  It mostly involves the highest ISOs and I admit it is better on a FF.  But is it that much better to blow your budget?  I can't answer that, you have to.  Cost vs benefit.  Your choice.

---

Compared to a 7D, I've found the 5D3 to have better low-light performance and more accurate auto-WB. But the main reason I went FF was that I found my 70-200 to be a bit too long for event photography, even in a fairly large room.

My guess is that the point of the 60D was to have a successor to the 50D while taking a bite out of production costs. I had a 50D; but when I upgraded, it was to a 7D. I never even considered the 60D.

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Personally, I am not a fan of either the 60D or the 6D.  I see them as place holders.  Canon saw the need to put something in between the very expensive 5D Mk III and nothing!  Hence, the 6D.  I don't know what the 60D was for?

Again most of the low light stuff about crop bodies is BS.  It mostly involves the highest ISOs and I admit it is better on a FF.  But is it that much better to blow your budget?  I can't answer that, you have to.  Cost vs benefit.  Your choice.

---

Full-frame sensors were always expensive and thus only used in high-end cameras.  A full-frame body was typically $3k+.  

There's a relationship between the physical size of a single "pixel" (since these are color cameras it's really a "photo-site"... a "pixel" is what you get after the image is de-Bayered) and the amount of noise you get at a given ISO sensitivity (all other things being equal.))  A larger "pixel" means less noise... and yet full frame cameras can have higher resolution since the sensor is larger.  So it's not so much about the sensor size that makes it better... it's the "pixel" size that makes it better... but you typically get that combination on a full-frame sensor so most people just associate full-frame with higher ISO and lower noise.

Can introduced the 6D as an entry-level full-frame body.  It doesn't have the benefits of the 5D III, but it sells for about 40-45% less.

The 60D was the follow-on to the 50D mid-range camera.  It was the first DSLR on the planet to get an articulated LCD screen (nobody had one.)  Video guys loved the screen... which eventually got added to the T3i and up, and the other camera makers also started offering them.  The 60D had a number of video features that it made it popular for DSLR video.  The one annoyance of the 60D was that Canon eliminated Auto-Focus Micro-Adjustment (the 50D had it.)  The "theory" was that Canon didn't want the 60D to cannibalize the sales of the 7D.  I'm not sure that's a valid argument since the 7D had a vastly better focus system and continuous shooting framerate performance tuned for action photography and the 60D didn't have those features.  The 60D had the 9 point AF system except that all 9 points were cross-type and on prior models only the center point was cross-type.

I would not get a 6D.  If you can stretch your budget to afford a 6D body, then just skip it and get a 7D II body.

My concern with using a 6D for someone who KNOWS they want a camera for sports is that the 6D has an 11 point AF system in which ONLY the center point is cross-type.  All other AF points are single-axis only.  Also, the 6D has a continuous burst speed of 4.5 frames per second (vs. the 7D's 8 fps and 19 cross-type AF points.)

The 6D "body only" is $1399.

The 7D II "body only" is $1499.

And yet... the 7D II blows the 6D away for action photography with a 65 point metering system, intelligent tracking, and can shoot at 10 frames per seocnd.  And since the 7D II is an APS-C body, it can use any lens you use on your current body.  It also has a better physical build (the 7D bodies are built like tanks).  You're getting a lot for just an extra $100.

[ebiggs1]

Tim's explaination is good info as usual but it can be easier to understand if you think of pixel density.  It is a fact the 7D Mk II has a greater pixel density than even the new 5Ds.  The 5Ds has 50mp vs the 7D Mk II at 20mp.  Therefore in lab tests it will be the sharper of the two cameras.  In practical use, however, I doubt you can tell the difference.

It has always been tough to pack so many pixels on the given sensor size.

Even considering pixel densityy, you must not forget pixel size.  The bigger the pixel the more light it can capture.

I agree, if it is in the budget, get the 7D Mk II. As noted I am not a fan of the 6D and much less the 60D.  Matter of fact, I will say don't buy a 60D. Period!

Whether you as an amatuer will see a huge difference between a 7D Mk II or a 6D as a "sports" camera might be a stretch.

If you were a SI photographer, yeah, probably so.

As to the idea of a tele converter for your 70-200mm f2.8, the 1.4x works very well.  DO NOT get the 2x version.  Personally I don't like extenders and would prefer the EF 400mm f5.6L prime lens.  However, the 1.4x does work well on both the 70-200mm and the EF 300mm f4L.

[Jaybird114]

Thanks for your info. I have a chance to purchase a lightly used 7d for 449. However I think I might hold out for a 7d mark II. The updates seem worth the money.

I love the 70-200 I have and am thinking of maybe looking at the en tender for a little more distance.

Baseball outfield shots are always a challenge.

Thanks again for your 2 cents. Have a great day.

Jay